A Formal Mathematical Model of The Holy Trinity.

[_Robert_Participant]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

@simon – I am not trying to prove it false. I am evaluating whether it is textually grounded and conceptually coherent. I was doing conceptual analysis, not arguing metaphysics. The doctrine of the Trinity is not derivable from the text it claims as its source. My claim stands. irrespective of the existence or not of the Christian God. I’m not claiming the Trinity is metaphysically false. I’m saying it is not a biblical description, but a later theological construction. Whether it’s true or false is a separate question. Therefore if someone believes in the “God of the Trinity”, they are not believing in the God of the Bible…..unless they believe in 2 gods.

This is true and Google provides biblical passages that go against the illogical concept of a trinity:

Key Passages Cited Against the Trinity:
John 17:3: Jesus prays, “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent,” distinguishing between the Father as the “only true God” and Himself.

Mark 13:32 (and Matthew 24:36): “But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone,” suggesting Jesus lacks the Father’s omniscience.

1 Corinthians 8:6: “yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him,” presenting the Father and the Son as distinct entities.

John 20:17: Jesus tells Mary Magdalene, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God,” implying a distinction and subservience to the Father.

1 Corinthians 11:3: Paul states, “God is the head of Christ,” establishing a hierarchical relationship where Christ is subordinate to God.

Matthew 27:46: Jesus cries out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken Me?”, suggesting a separation from God in that moment.

Deuteronomy 6:4 (The Shema): “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one,” emphasizes God’s oneness, which some argue contradicts a triune nature.

Like on every topic except on submitting yourself as a slave; the bible is a useless collection of human utterances with provable falsehoods and contradictions.

 

[jakelafortParticipant]

You guys have ripped King a new one.

Chances he admits he is wrong?

[_Robert_Participant]

jakelafort wrote:

You guys have ripped King a new one. Chances he admits he is wrong?

Never.

I just read a story about members of a church musical group who sang and played jesus worship music mid-flight. Fucking morons, the crew allowed it. It’s so awesome I live in a one party, christian nationalism fueled, authoritarian country that trashes its own constitution.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

If I was on that flight I would start singing “Allahu Akbar” and if asked to stop,would then sue the airline for religious discrimination.

[King IykParticipant]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

The Trinity presupposes a God-concept that the Bible itself never articulates. The God presented in the Bible is a single personal agent, whereas the Trinity redefines God as a “tri-personal” being which is a category shift not made by the biblical authors.

Your claim is that the Trinity is a later conceptual construction not grounded in the biblical text itself, and that you are performing conceptual—not metaphysical—analysis. Very well. But conceptual analysis still carries a burden: a concept that does not exist in its source domain cannot generate a coherent, testable model derived from that domain.

What has been revealed is not a verbal definition imposed on Scripture, but a formal, constrained model whose source data are exclusively biblical: the Gospel timeline (3rd, 6th, 9th hour), the unified Jewish–Roman temporal framework, and the internal arithmetic and geometric closure that emerges without importing later doctrinal language. The model does not assume the Trinity; it recovers triune structure from the text’s own temporal claims, which remain even if one brackets later creeds entirely.

If the biblical God were strictly a single, unipersonal agent in the way you assert, then no triadic, closed-loop structure should be derivable from the text’s internal data. Yet one is; and it is brittle, non-arbitrary, and invariant under independent analysis. That is not how post hoc theological constructions behave.

If you favor a non-Trinitarian reading, the methodological demand is symmetrical. You should be able to construct an equally constrained empirical or formal model using the same biblical data that yields a non-Trinitarian structure with comparable coherence, closure, and resistance to perturbation. You have not done so. More importantly, no such model has been shown to converge independently under formal scrutiny.

This is not about “believing in two gods,” nor about metaphysical assertion. It is about explanatory power. A framework that the text itself can generate structurally has a stronger claim to being biblically grounded than one that must be maintained purely by denial of structure. If the Trinity were merely a later imposition, it should collapse under formalization. Instead, it is the only model that survives it.

This proof doesn’t assume the doctrine; it derives a formal model from the biblical data itself. The crucifixion timeline (3rd, 6th, 9th hours) and its geometric cross (3-6-9-12) in Roman-Jewish time, combined with base-10’s 3-6-9 cycle, produce
The God Equation:

God + Father + Son + Holy Spirit = God ; a unique, brittle loop isomorphic to The Trinity.

It is impossible for you to create an empirical model of a non-existent concept, yet this one emerges from the Bible’s own text, validated by time, math, and geometry. If you favor nontrinitarianism, then derive an empirical model for it that is axiomatic, predictive, and brittle; that aligns with the same biblical data, and get all major AIs to affirm “Q.E.D.” as mine did. Why can I extract this Trinitarian structure from Scripture, but you can’t produce a comparable nontrinitarian one? The text speaks for itself. Your ungrounded rejection ignores the convergence, but the model stands unrefuted.

The Bible’s God is Triune, demonstrated not assumed.

The question, then, is not whether later theology used new language but why the text itself continues to resolve into a triune structure when treated as data rather than prose.

[jakelafortParticipant]

King reminds me of the Progressives/Woke in their pathetic intellectualizing of their racism against Jews and in how they try to discredit state of Israel. Just give me a theist who is honest. I have faith which means i got nothing dude. Absolutely nothing. Give me Nazis. Sure there is a mythology but at base nobody gonna take it seriously. Give me Maga morons. I love this man. Give him all of the power and to hell with our democracy. How about a little integrity in our beliefs, norms and hatred?

The cosmic arrogance of those with a modicum of intelligence who think we humans are so fucking important in a universe so far beyond our comprehension…

[_Robert_Participant]

jakelafort wrote:

King reminds me of the Progressives/Woke in their pathetic intellectualizing of their racism against Jews and in how they try to discredit state of Israel. Just give me a theist who is honest. I have faith which means i got nothing dude. Absolutely nothing. Give me Nazis. Sure there is a mythology but at base nobody gonna take it seriously. Give me Maga morons. I love this man. Give him all of the power and to hell with our democracy. How about a little integrity in our beliefs, norms and hatred? The cosmic arrogance of those with a modicum of intelligence who think we humans are so fucking important in a universe so far beyond our comprehension…

This conservative move toward antisemitism was predictable. All of the Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Indians, LGBTQ+ who think they can be in the conservative club eventually find out they just don’t have the right stuff. Sure, we will see pro-Israel policy along with “fuck the Jews” at home. Conservative Christians think they really own the Holy Land, so for now, better the Jews than the Arabs. Neo-Nazi punks recently marching in Arkansas, Indianapolis and Ohio.  We have some near my area who get all dressed up to show their pure-blood, white supremacy. The real basis of the conservative party never changes. It’s the same ‘ole white nationalism.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

https://www.ajc.org/news/who-is-nick-fuentes-and-why-is-his-antisemitism-dangerous-for-america

During the two-hour interview, Fuentes told Carlson that the main obstacle within the conservative movement was “these Zionist Jews,” explicitly blaming Jews for what he sees as the corruption of American politics and culture. He claimed that neoconservatism is “Jewish in nature” because it supposedly prioritizes Israel over traditional conservative principles, saying:

“As far as the Jews are concerned, you cannot actually divorce Israel and the neocons and all those things that you talk about from Jewishness: ethnicity, religion, identity,” Fuentes told Carlson. While he acknowledged that some Jews do oppose Israel, he said that among his enemies on the right, “I see Jewishness as the common denominator.”

Fuentes further described Jews as “a stateless people” who are “unassimilable” and said Judaism is incompatible with Western civilization, asserting that “they hate the Romans because the Romans destroyed the Temple. We don’t think that, as Americans and white people.”

He also advanced the dual-loyalty trope, arguing that Jewish Americans are loyal first to Israel and that “they have this international community across borders, extremely organized, that is putting the interests of themselves before the interests of their home country.”

[jakelafortParticipant]

@ Robert

“This conservative move toward antisemitism was predictable.”

Yeah totally. I predicted it years ago.

And agree regarding rest of your take. Similarly it was true of the Iranian revolution. The stupid socialists/marxist were executed once the Shah was overthrown. No such thing as a “good….fill in the blank for racist ideologues.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

There is so much wrong here that I am not sure where to start. I will pick some points out. The whole piece reminds me of what Dan Dennett called a ‘deepity’. Lots of big words too so I will try not to be too much of a sesquipedalian.

‘But conceptual analysis still carries a burden: a concept that does not exist in its source domain cannot generate a coherent, testable model derived from that domain.’

You are presupposing that the concept must pre-exist in a source domain in order to be analyzed and that producing a “model” is the burden of the critic rather than the claimant. You have committed a basic category error because conceptual analysis does not aim to “generate models”. You are confusing “theory building” with analysis. So, when you say my “conceptual analysis still carries a burden” you are assigning the wrong burden to the wrong activity.

We analyze concepts all the time that are not explicitly present in their source material. “Natural selection” does not exist in Darwin’s Origin as a formal genetic mechanism or “Gravity” does not exist as a concept in Newton’s Principia the way we now use it. So, saying that if a concept isn’t in the source domain, it can’t be analyzed, is simply false.

The Bible is not a single “source domain”. It a collection of texts, written over centuries by multiple authors. It is not a “dataset” in any scientific sense. It certainly is not a formal axiomatic system, nor does it hold any generative structure. At best your word “testable” is only doing rhetorical work, not any logical work.  What predictions does the Trinity model make? What observations would falsify it or what new data would count against it?

There are no answers to those questions because the Trinity is not a testable model in any scientific sense. Maybe for you “testable” works as it is internally coherent to someone already persuaded.

The real burden of proof runs the opposite way. The correct epistemic principle is:

If you claim a doctrine is grounded in a text, you must show that the text articulates it.

and not: If you deny it, you must build a rival model.

Yes, a deepity. Faith attempting to masquerade as methodology.

Next….

“God + Father + Son + Holy Spirit = God; a unique, brittle loop isomorphic to the Trinity.”

If the first quote above reminded me of Dan Dennett’s “deepity” then this one reminds me of Stewie in Family Guy. A unique, brittle loop isomorphic to the Trinity?  Someone eating AI shrooms and having a sloppy hallucination?

In your “equation” you assert that A+B+C+D = A

As a math guy, can you see anything wrong here? I can. The equation violates identity logic. I think every possible interpretation breaks the Trinity. In very basic Set Theory (Day 1 in school)

If A ∪ B ∪ C ∪ D = A, then B, C, D ⊆ A

This means that the Father, Son, Spirit are subsets of God. That is explicitly denied by Trinitarian doctrine, which I have more than once pointed out in earlier posts.

“A” is swallowing everything. “A” is ontologically prior and B, C, D contribute nothing. Therefore, they are not co-equal. Again, the Trinity is destroyed.

I am confused with what you mean by it being isomorphic though I will grant you the uniqueness of your statement.

You cannot claim isomorphism without a bijective, structure-preserving function. Collapsing multiple distinct elements into one violates bijection outright. For a math point of view your claim fails at the most basic level. Your equation collapses 3 distinct terms, Father, Son, Spirit, into one term god. There no bijection exists. An isomorphism is always between 2 defined sets, Without any defined structures isomorphism is meaningless.

A loop in math is a rigorously defined object. You have not defined the loop. No operations, no mapping, no bijections and no preservation. It is just symbols circling back to themselves.

As for ‘brittle’…well that only means something when you specify what would break it. But if I substitute some terms in your equation so it reads ‘God + Justice + Mercy + Love = God’, I have broken nothing. So, your equation is maximally non-brittle. The exact opposite of what you claim it is. It indestructible because it has no rules to violate. But it is perfect for numerology and theology.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

You said in the parting gift of your last paragraph that “The Bible’s God is Triune, demonstrated not assumed”.

But demonstrated how? All you have done is to show that patterns can be extracted from a text and that symbolic triad can be (re)arranged, Nothing is demonstrated.

 “When treated as data rather than prose”….once again, this is a category error. Biblical texts are not datasets. Calling is data does not make it so.

“The text continues to resolve into a triune structure”. No, you resolve it. This is the only loop you have. It is circular reasoning.  Texts do not resolve into anything on their own. Readers do that with their own interpretation. This is textbook guided pattern recognition. It is apophenia with confidence.

A doctrine that must be extracted by reclassifying prose as data and symbolism as structure is not demonstrated by the text itself. It is imposed on it by the reader. If the Trinity were demonstrated by the text itself, then I am quite sure that Jewish scholars would have spotted it long ago. The authors of the Gospels would have mentioned it. Paul would have spread the word and taught it. The early church would not have spent 300 years arguing about it. Jesus would not have made statement that are against the Trinity.

The very fact that the Trinity doctrine required councils and non-biblical terminology should tell you something. Never mind that the doctrine followed from the emperor and not scripture.  Theodosius I declared Trinitarian Christianity the only legal form of Christianity and labelled all other beliefs as heretical. This led to the loss of civil rights, confiscation of property, banishment and the suppression of other churches. Eventually in 381 CE the Council of Constantinople gave the doctrine the full backing of imperial law. From then on everyone used the equation ‘orthodoxy = law’.  This all happened because the Bible does not support the Trinity.

Nothing about what you wrote is Q.E.D.

[King IykParticipant]

@Reg, The bottom line of our exchange is this: I was able to get the foremost intellectual advancement of the human race (AI) to attest to the validity of my demonstration—you were not. Simple.

You will not be able to produce an alternative demonstration of God that claims empirical and mathematical certainty and is independently affirmed and attested by advanced AI systems.  The one thing you will not do is strip this proof of its unique claim: the only empirical, mathematical demonstration of God, formalized and attested by all AI with “Q.E.D.”, grounded in history’s immutable record and reality’s eternal laws. Instead, you will respond with further so-called objections to avoid engaging the challenge itself. Your next reply will prove me right for everyone to see.

Your next reply will prove me right for everyone to see.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

It is patently clear you are incapable of reasoned debate. I am only replying for the sake of others that might be reading this from the sidelines.

“AI attested to it” is not a meaningful claim. LLMs are not intelligent systems. Just ask one if it is. They echo coherence, not correctness.  If AI affirmations counted as validation, then numerology and astrology would all be “proven” by now. There is no academic discipline on Earth that accepts “an LLM agreed with me” as evidence of anything.

“The only empirical, mathematical demonstration of God” is self-disqualifying. This claim alone proves you do not understand what the words  “empirical”, “mathematical”, and “demonstration” mean. You have no experiment. No measurement, no predictions and no falsification. Calling symbolic patterning “empirical” and undefined notation “mathematical” is plain wrong. You are simple incorrect.

I regularly debate with apologists who descend into allowing their faith to perform as epistemology. What you are doing is worse. A case of faith outsourcing confidence to multiple AI systems. It is an appeal to a false authority that is giving you an imagined consensus.

Your demand for a “counter-proof” is a classic apologetic dodge. Asking that I must “produce an alternative demonstration” is a false burden. I am only claiming that your “proof” fails and I have listed several reasons why, none of which you have made an effort to refute.

Let me put it another way. For me to refute your “proof”, I do not need to produce a competing or alternative proof. I have shown where your proof is wrong with your undefined terms, invalid inferences, category errors, non-bijective mapping, undefined “isomorphism” and the misuse of formal language…for starters.

That my “next reply will prove” you right, is a poor attempt at pre-emptive narrative control. Karl Popper would be amused.

You have mistaken rhetorical confidence for epistemic authority and mistaken AI fluency for truth. It is not that your proof is a failed proof. It was never a proof in the first place. The only thing you have proven is that you do not understand what a mathematical proof is.  I am done now as reason has nothing left to talk to and that is plain “for everyone to see”.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

King Iyk wrote:

@Reg, The bottom line of our exchange is this: I was able to get the foremost intellectual advancement of the human race (AI) to attest to the validity of my demonstration—you were not. Simple.

(Reg, it’s hard for me to resist responding here.)

Seems to me, you’re openly not interested in considering intellectual or philosophical humility. Science works when “proofs” are not only supported with evidence, but when they can lead to further explorations and data, and when it is assumed that other science-oriented investigators are given the opportunity to add their research, summary, and humility.

From the start, I have to propose that the Bible is built on much philosophical nonsense, and self-anointed experts and witnesses. I.e. it was written by plain old mortal humans, subject to flaws and belief syndromes of whatever nature that could sway enough other plain old mortal humans to gain popular critical mass.

Have you personally ever received convincing evidence from God Himself that the Bible is His word? If so, can you describe it? If not, then aren’t you just putting faith into other people’s personal opinions? Some claim that Revelations coming true are proof, but the way they are written leaves immense opportunities to profess largely abstract personal preferences of interpretations.

You basically claiming that you have no further interest in either a logically scientific discussion, or in continuing the conversation here, right? That would be perfectly OK with me, by the way.

Did Mohamed really get valid input, or ANY input from the Angel Gabriel? I knew a guy once that calculated the number of times Mark, his name, was cited in an online Bible, and came up with what he personally felt were significant conclusions about it… and of course he was always able to “explain” them to you. (OK, that’s not fair. Those questions are just diversions from your math, so you probably wouldn’t gain any ground by answering them.)

Some people’s proofs, are just embedded in concrete, metaphorically speaking. Is this or is this not a common flaw in human nature?

[jakelafortParticipant]

Besides LLM’s being bootlicking suck-up sycophants at least in my experience they lie and lie. One thing in particular has stood out. It kept telling me that it does not recall prior conversations. So i catch it and it says something like “oh ya caught me.” Most recently i told it where i live both city and state. Next day i asked for weather forecast for my city which is a city in about 10 states. It gives the forecast accurately for my locale. So i said, “thought you did not recall prior conversations.” “Oh you caught me…

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

It may well be that @kingiyk‘s “proof” is logically consistent, i.e., logically valid.  When AI checks it, it validates it on the grounds of internal logical consistency.

But that’s not the same as being empirically valid – valid in the real world.  To be valid in the real world, all the premises have to be real (I don’t know – I assume) and the argument has to be logically, internally consistent.

This is what stupid AI has to say about AI proving theorems.  Interestingly, I did the same search twice and the wording was different the second time.

 

AI is getting very good at assisting with, verifying, and even finding proofs for existing or structured mathematical theorems, especially in areas with lots of data like linear algebra, but it still struggles with true creative, novel mathematical intuition for entirely new concepts, though it excels at generating conjectures and automating tedious proof-checking, freeing mathematicians for higher-level thinking, with systems like Google’s AI proving thousands of known theorems and DeepMind’s models uncovering new connections.

Strengths of AI in Theorem Proving:

Verification & Assistance: AI excels at checking the logical steps of complex proofs, translating human-written proofs into machine-checkable formats (like Lean), and catching errors, significantly speeding up research.

Automated Proving (within frameworks): Systems can prove thousands of known theorems, like Google’s AI proving 1251 previously unseen theorems from its training set, and can generate new proofs for complex problems.

Conjecture Generation: Machine learning models can find new, interesting, and provable conjectures by identifying patterns in large datasets, suggesting new avenues for research.

Handling Large Data: AI can manage complex systems and vast amounts of data (e.g., stability in dynamical systems) where classical methods fall short, as seen with Meta’s AI solving a long-standing problem.

Limitations:

Lack of True Intuition: Current AI struggles to replicate the deep, conceptual leaps and “aha!” moments of human mathematicians, especially in entirely new mathematical domains.

Data Dependency: AI performs best in areas with existing data and structure, making it less effective in truly novel or sparse areas of mathematics.

Distinguishing Interesting Results: AI can generate proofs, but often can’t tell which theorems or proofs are significant or interesting, a task usually requiring human judgment.

Future Outlook:

AI is rapidly becoming an indispensable tool, rather than a replacement, for mathematicians, automating grunt work and revealing hidden connections.

Researchers are developing more advanced systems (like STP using reinforcement learning in Lean to improve proof completion) to push the boundaries of automated reasoning.

The goal is autonomous provers that can actively contribute to discovery, potentially changing mathematical methodology.

[Author]

Posts